Okay but to what degree is this a new development and to what degree are such things already built into the polls?

It is a fairly new development, one that has led to McCain's recent surge. It also points to an effective technique at the Republicans' disposal that could be applied closer to the election, targeting different groups of people.

You think it's new? I think Obama has had people whispering quietly about him for quite some time. Certainly during the primaries.

Yes, but I'm not just talking about the whisper campaigns, but about the overt lies in ads and speeches, some of which are about Obama and some of which are about McCain's and Palin's own records (e.g., "Obama will increase your taxes," "Palin fights earmarks," etc.). Clinton, to her credit, didn't go this far.

ETA: I also agree with Rich's conclusion that we should concern ourselves not only with the effects of McCain-Palin's mendacity on the election but also with what it says about how they would govern.

I agree that I don't think racism, in general, is going to decide this election. Frankly, there are enough reasons not to vote for Obama that have nothing to do with his race, if you're looking for one (as there are enough reasons not to vote for McCain to fill an encyclopedia).

I think the debates will have a big impact, if only because it will be the first time many Americans, certainly many independents, will actually hear Obama talking about real issues. It might also provide a better opportunity for voters to see just how similar to Bush McCain is than 30-second TV spots have.

Given how many times they've seesawed, though, I'm not sure why polls have been given such importance this early, anyway.

i have included links to recent articles outlining a pervasive latino and asian racism against blacks specifically. you can choose to ignore those, although i think you do that at your peril (both in terms of its impact on the election and just in general as a perceptive, all around good person). i have admitted that white racism continues to be a problem, though not on a scale purported by the left.

I don't know what good you think it is going to do to continue to call people racist, but you should go on by all means.

this is central to my point MissP. you don't think it is any good pointing out that other groups are racist and yet the left continually hyperbolizes white male racism. your link only underlines how obsessed white, and liberal white males in particular, are at pointing out how pervasive white racism is (and i think it bear repeating once again, since people distort just about everything on these boards, that i do think white racism still exits, just not to the extent people think it does and it is certainly not an institutional racism, thankfully that is a thing of the past). they (and you) are quite uncomfortable talking about how much more overt racism is in other ethnic groups. it is, as i pointed out, the pink elephant in the room.

For goodness' sake, learn to quote, man.

I think you're wrong on many counts. (1) You overestimate Latino and Asian racism; (2) you underestimate white racism; (3) it's less worthwhile to talk about the racial biases of a small group of voters than it is to talk about the racial biases of a large group of voters; and (4) institutional, not personal, racism is the primary form of racism that exists today (you may be confusing it with de jure racism).

I am not in the slightest bit uncomfortable talking about racial bias in any form. I just don't think that racism of Asian and Latino voters is going to be decisive in this election. I also doubt that overt white racism will be decisive, though certainly there is some indication that a significant number of married white women and some white working-class Democrats have refused to vote for Obama because of his race. You will not find similar statistics connecting Asian and Latino racism to this election outside of the Puerto Rican primary. (You may argue that this is because of a bias among researchers, but, to believe you, liberal whites are obsessed with racial guilt so I don't see why they wouldn't feel redeemed by such studies if they came to the conclusions you presume.)

dear god we disagree on so much MissP. it is not institutional racism that exists any more my dear. there are strata of our society which are racist but to say, for example, that the IRS discriminates against people on the basis of race is nonsense (despite what Wesley Snipes might add to the discussion) or to add that the DOD engages in active racism is bunk. you have some white people who are still stuck on stupid who routinely conflate things like their hatred of laziness, with a dislike of say, latinos, whom they wrongly perceive as lazy as a group. much of what was once racism has now become classism, to invent a word. white, latino and black members of the middle class interact without a hint of discord all across the country. the divide is increasingly one of finances. i have provided recent articles outlining a pervasive racism among latinos and asians against blacks. i have included anecdotes of traveling in asia and latino social circles where anti-black racism is particularly virulent. i have also provided proof of "mainstream" black churches spewing some pretty radical, racist garbage. you could never argue that any legitimate, mainstream, traditionally white church, could spew such vitriol without being marginalized in a hurry. apologists for the likes of reverend Wright et al abound. i don't know too many conservatives who think the reverend Hagee is a righteous dude. to close. the reason i think latino and asian racism will play a role, despite the small demographics (too repeat myself again), is that the election will be that close. their racism, completely disregarded by the media, will make the difference (the white racists never would have voted for Obama anyway, that's the point, this is old news).

You're completely missing the boat. The hardened Asian and Latino voters who will not vote for Obama because of his race are extremely unlikely to vote for Democrats (or to register as Democrats) anyway because (a) the Democratic party is known among people who are racist against African-Americans as a party of liberal guilt and entitlement programs for African Americans and has been for at least a quarter of a century (see, generally, welfare mothers, Willie Horton) and (b) these voters, unlike white working-class voters, do not have entrenched historical ties to the party. The reason white racism will have a greater impact on this election than Asian and Latino racism ever could is not merely that the numbers of white racist voters are larger but also because the white racist voters are swing voters.

You're completely missing the boat. The hardened Asian and Latino voters who will not vote for Obama because of his race are extremely unlikely to vote for Democrats (or to register as Democrats) anyway because (a) the Democratic party is known among people who are racist against African-Americans as a party of liberal guilt and entitlement programs for African Americans and has been for at least a quarter of a century (see, generally, welfare mothers, Willie Horton) and (b) these voters, unlike white working-class voters, do not have entrenched historical ties to the party. The reason white racism will have a greater impact on this election than Asian and Latino racism ever could is not merely that the numbers of white racist voters are larger but also because the white racist voters are swing voters.

you cite a source that conforms to my impression of institutionalized racism. sadly for me it is a wiki source that is flagged for lack of citation and bias. since Obama is a first in terms of either party, it is erroneous to assume that latinos and asians are not registered democrats, they simply haven't been faced with this reality before. the very term swing voter implies that they will have an influence on the outcome of the election. these biased latinos and asians may well swing the election McCain's way.

since Obama is a first in terms of either party, it is erroneous to assume that latinos and asians are not registered democrats, they simply haven't been faced with this reality before. the very term swing voter implies that they will have an influence on the outcome of the election. these biased latinos and asians may well swing the election McCain's way.

I must have been unclear.

I didn't say Asians and Latinos were not Democrats. I said those Asians and Latinos who have very strong prejudices against African Americans are not Democrats because the Democratic party has been identified for at least the last 25 years (however erroneously) as a party that gives handouts to African Americans or apologizes for the so-called cultural problems in black communities. White racists have also left the Democratic party for the same reason. However, some have stayed behind because of their union membership or other long-term historical connections to the party (which most racist Asians and Latinos do not have). For some of these racist white Democrats, Obama's race will be enough to push them to vote Republican or third-party in this election. They are the swing voters: once Democratic, now possibly Republican.

With respect to institutional racism, you seemed earlier to be referring to the racism of individual decisionmakers who have some kind of power in an institution. If you weren't, I apologize. I can't comprehend how you could understand what institutional racism is and not believe it exists. I am not, however, interested in discussing it with you because I find your views on race and racism, generally, to be misinformed or offensive.

since Obama is a first in terms of either party, it is erroneous to assume that latinos and asians are not registered democrats, they simply haven't been faced with this reality before. the very term swing voter implies that they will have an influence on the outcome of the election. these biased latinos and asians may well swing the election McCain's way.

I must have been unclear.

I didn't say Asians and Latinos were not Democrats. I said those Asians and Latinos who have very strong prejudices against African Americans are not Democrats because the Democratic party has been identified for at least the last 25 years (however erroneously) as a party that gives handouts to African Americans or apologizes for the so-called cultural problems in black communities. White racists have also left the Democratic party for the same reason. However, some have stayed behind because of their union membership or other long-term historical connections to the party (which most racist Asians and Latinos do not have). For some of these racist white Democrats, Obama's race will be enough to push them to vote Republican or third-party in this election. They are the swing voters: once Democratic, now possibly Republican.

With respect to institutional racism, you seemed earlier to be referring to the racism of individual decisionmakers who have some kind of power in an institution. If you weren't, I apologize. I can't comprehend how you could understand what institutional racism is and not believe it exists. I am not, however, interested in discussing it with you because I find your views on race and racism, generally, to be misinformed or offensive.

how can you say "i am not in the slightest bit uncomfortable talking about racial bias in any form" and then say something like "I find your views on race and racism...offensive" and "i am not...interested in discussing [racism] with you". seems incongruous. what you should say is that like most white liberals you feel great slamming white men but when the specter of black, latino or asian racism raises its head you want no part of the discussion. i'll repeat my point again. latinos and asians have never had to make a choice about a black candidate before. most of them are registered democrats. given the choice i think many of them will either stay home or vote for McCain. by many, i mean enough to make a difference in a close election. period. end of point.

incidentally MissP, i've watched with some interest how you routinely attempt to correct people on matters of opinion (ridiculous, how can you correct an opinion after all?) and rather condescendingly attempt to correct people about word usage (see institutional racism) when that person is actually using the word correctly. your cite to an unchecked wiki article which happens to mirror my definition of institutional racism makes your attempted correction all the sillier. i think i speak for most when i say that i am not wowed by your forms of argumentation. your favorite technique seems to be opening with something like: "perhaps i wasn't clear" or "maybe i'm not picking up what your dropping" before rambling off in ways that confirm the prefatory statement. also i think you waste way too much of your precious puff on these boards. get a life.

how can you say "i am not in the slightest bit uncomfortable talking about racial bias in any form" and then say something like "I find your views on race and racism...offensive" and "i am not...interested in discussing [racism] with you". seems incongruous. what you should say is that like most white liberals you feel great slamming white men but when the specter of black, latino or asian racism raises its head you want no part of the discussion. i'll repeat my point again. latinos and asians have never had to make a choice about a black candidate before. most of them are registered democrats. given the choice i think many of them will either stay home or vote for McCain. by many, i mean enough to make a difference in a close election. period. end of point.

1. I am not interested in having a larger discussion about institutional and structural racism with you because I don't have the time and energy, and because I am certain it will not be productive, not because it makes me uncomfortable.

2. I have shown myself to be willing to engage you on this particular issue.

3. If you have any studies, polls, or even anecdotal evidence that support your conclusion that a significant number of Asian and Latino registered Democrats are racist enough to vote against Obama or stay home because of his race, by all means, let's see them.

4. I have tried to make an argument about the party membership of the most hardened racists of different racial-ethnic backgrounds; you have either ignored it or it is sailing over your head. I have also argued that the numbers aren't significant enough to make a difference in the states in which the Latino and Asian voting populations are highest (i.e., Obama will win, e.g., California and Illinois, and McCain will win, e.g., Texas).

incidentally MissP, i've watched with some interest how you routinely attempt to correct people on matters of opinion (ridiculous, how can you correct an opinion after all?)

I'm not sure what you're talking about unless you are some kind of relativist who believes that statements of facts are actually mere opinions. I do think that it's pretty normal for people taking part in an argument to describe their own positions as "right" or the other position as "wrong." If this is what you mean, I plead guilty.

. . . and rather condescendingly attempt to correct people about word usage (see institutional racism) when that person is actually using the word correctly. your cite to an unchecked wiki article which happens to mirror my definition of institutional racism makes your attempted correction all the sillier.

I am sorry that I misunderstood you (as I said above when I apologized). When I did misunderstand you, I thought that a general explanation of the term would be helpful to you -- this is something for which I find wikipedia helpful (regardless of whether the entry meets wiki standards, it may be a clear explanation of a term or phenomenon). I still find it difficult to understand how someone who knows what institutional racism is believes that it "thankfully" doesn't exist any longer. But this is something I don't want to waste time talking about on a message board with someone who appears not to share my core values.

i think i speak for most when i say that i am not wowed by your forms of argumentation. your favorite technique seems to be opening with something like: "perhaps i wasn't clear" or "maybe i'm not picking up what your dropping" before rambling off in ways that confirm the prefatory statement. also i think you waste way too much of your precious puff on these boards. get a life.

I have to be honest: losing your affection doesn't exactly break me apart. I do admit that I am often cool or even hostile toward you and a handful of other posters (blue warrior, jeffislouie, lindbergh, freak). I'm not proud of this. I find your arguments and style aggravating, and I have been pretty open about that (as you are being with me). It's still not an excuse for some of the swipes I've taken.

While we're at it, I likewise find your posts generally unpersuasive. You often nag and poke at an issue and then abandon it when people pose serious challenges. You have also been unaccountable when you caused offense or failed to hold up your standards of civil and respectful debate (e.g., your comments about women who have or consider abortions).